Walters v. Mitchell is an unpublished August 2023 opinion from the Court of Appeals. I represented Mr. Mitchell on an appeal of the termination of his parental rights. On appeal, we argued that his mental illness would not make him unlikely to provide minimally acceptable care his son, that his failure to pay support was not willful, and that it was not in his son’s best interests to terminate his parental rights when no one was seeking to step into the role of legal father.
The Court of Appeals rejected these arguments. It held father’s history of mental illness and his contradictory statements regarding his condition, coupled with expert testimony on his condition was clear and convincing evidence that his diagnosable condition that was unlikely to change within a reasonable time and made him unlikely to provide minimally acceptable care for his son.
The Court of Appeals further found father could have provided some support while incarcerated and that he spent money on non-essential items while incarcerated. If further found that upon release from prison he worked but still failed to provide support. Thus it found his failure to support was willful.
Finally the Court of Appeals affirmed that termination of parental rights was in his son’s best interest. It found father had minimal contact with his son and lacked insight into the child’s special needs.
It’s not easy to repudiate an executed South Carolina domestic relations agreement
Multiple times every year—three times in the past week—I hear from a South Carolina family court litigant who wishes to repudiate an agreement
On October 1, 2025, South Carolina began implementing a new version of Rule 21, SCRFC, addressing the procedures for family court temporary hearings.
What can be addressed in a reconciliation agreement?
I have long thought that reconciliation agreements (also called postnuptial agreements) were of questionable validity. In prenuptial agreements, unmarried parties intend to enter
